Ah, those academic folks . . .

[MaltLiquorBull]

3 minutes ago, puc86 said:

This.

And how exactly does a 35k stadium directly contribute to better athletics?

It makes it a better experience for me, so there's that.

[Bull Matrix]

30 minutes ago, Dave_Glaser said:

NO, athletics will not fund the academic side. I don't think anyone is making that argument. But that's not what we're talking about here. The study I want to see is how successful athletics impacts applications to a university, the number and quality of the applicants, school fundraising, membership in the alumni association, etc. Those things do impact the academic side of the university.

A good OCS will showcase the USF campus for many others that would never think about stepping foot on campus. To me that is priceless 

3 minutes ago, MaltLiquorBull said:

It makes it a better experience for me, so there's that.

And that is priceless..

[Bull94]

7 minutes ago, MaltLiquorBull said:

So we're kicking ass and taking names.  I see that.  But I certainly don't think having better athletics would negatively affect these trends.

I should hope not. we are "investing" an awful lot of money there for it to be a net negative.

[puc86]

Just now, MaltLiquorBull said:

It makes it a better experience for me, so there's that.

Losing to most teams while playing a worse schedule while being passed by teams you previously had lapped while paying 4-5x more isn’t going to be a better experience for anyone and the novelty of a new stadium without success tends to wear off in exactly one season.  All that matters is getting out of the aac by any means necessary and there is no way anyone seriously believes this actually is a requirement of any better conference, they just have to tell themselves that because it’s the only glimmer of hope we have from these people.

[Bull94]

1 minute ago, Bull Matrix said:

A good OCS will showcase the USF campus for many others that would never think about stepping foot on campus. To me that is priceless 

And that is priceless..

the type of student that chooses a school based on athletics is probably not a very serious student. most likely won't help improve your academic profile.

 

[86atlbull]

A history and philosophy professor making negative comments about athletic investments.  Shocking!!  

[JTrue]

7 minutes ago, 86atlbull said:

A history and philosophy professor making negative comments about athletic investments.  Shocking!!  

The history department won just as many games over D1 competition as the football team did last year and cost $50 million less.

[Outlaw]

1 hour ago, Dave_Glaser said:

NO, athletics will not fund the academic side. I don't think anyone is making that argument. But that's not what we're talking about here. The study I want to see is how successful athletics impacts applications to a university, the number and quality of the applicants, school fundraising, membership in the alumni association, etc. Those things do impact the academic side of the university.

Exactly 

[Outlaw]

11 minutes ago, JTrue said:

The history department won just as many games over D1 competition as the football team did last year and cost $50 million less.

Technically you are not wrong. Do we have a history class 30000 plus will show up for and support their university?

Thank jeff scott and Ad for achieving  his vision of stability and extending the least successful coach in fbs football.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Outlaw

[Triple B]

1 hour ago, Bull94 said:

the type of student that chooses a school based on athletics is probably not a very serious student. most likely won't help improve your academic profile.

 

This was my thoughts reading some of the comments. Higher profile athletics may help the quantity of college applicants but I doubt helps the quality that much ….